Antinouns [entries|reading|network|archive]
simont

[ userinfo | dreamwidth userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Tue 2008-03-11 11:17
Antinouns

Over the past decade I have been gradually forming an opinion about computing, and it is this: complex computer systems and pronouns do not mix well.

I said something like this nearly ten years ago in my article ‘How to Report Bugs Effectively’. Near the end I mentioned that when writing a bug report you should be careful of pronouns, because they can easily turn out to have more than one plausible referent and render your sentence ambiguous. Since then I've been gradually forming the opinion that this principle goes further than bug reports, and should in fact be extended to most – if not all – statements about computers which are intended to be technically precise.

The reason I say this about computers in particular is that computer systems seem to be a particularly fertile field for not being quite sure which bit of them someone's talking about. A complex computer system contains a great many cooperating processes, programs and scripts, so if someone says something like ‘it couldn't find the file’ then there are often several of those programs and scripts which might plausibly have been looking for the same file, so it's easy to be unclear about which the person meant. (And, indeed, there are often many files those programs could have been looking for; ‘the file’ in my above example isn't technically a pronoun, but for these purposes it can easily have the same vagueness problem.)

Part of the problem, I think, is that people are often not sure themselves which part of a complex system they're talking about. That's excusable when a user is reporting a bug: as long as they can clearly describe the visible symptoms, it's not their responsibility to understand the tangle of interoperating processes that gave rise to them. But if (for instance) there's a subsequent conversation between two programmers trying to fix the bug, and one of them advances a hypothesis about what's going on, then the excessive use of ‘it’ in the statement of the hypothesis seems to me to be correlated with the programmer being hopelessly confused about which part of the system is doing what – often leading to the hypothesis being fundamentally unviable.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that one must not use pronouns; but I think that if one is trying to conduct a precise technical conversation, one should at the very least

  • make sure one has a clear idea of the exact referent of every pronoun one uses, and be prepared to state that referent precisely if queried
  • be sparing in the use of pronouns: be aware that there's a constant risk of ambiguity, and only use a pronoun when you're reasonably sure it's safe to do so. In particular, become less willing to use pronouns the more involved the conversation becomes.

(I'm half tempted to coin the word ‘antinoun’ to describe a pronoun used to – not necessarily consciously – cover the fact that you're not sure what its referent is.)

LinkReply
[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 11:21
I tend to say things like “something couldn't find a file” when I'm not sure what the relevant component is.
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] uisgebeatha.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 11:22
*nods*

Thank you for linking to your article. Would you mind if I emailed the link to my co-workers? We're always looking for more coherent ways to annoy developers. ;)

Also, fancy meeting up this weekend or an evening this week? :)
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontTue 2008-03-11 11:27
By all means distribute my bugs article as widely as you like. That's what it's for! :-)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 11:35
Totally agree. Whenever I write a bug report I go back over it afterwards and replace any "it"s with their referents, apart from where the referent is totally unambiguous and restating it would make the language sound ridiculously unnatural. I've usually written the "it"s in the first place because I know which thing I'm referring to and so it seems obvious, but on a second readthrough I realise that there are usually several possible antecedents each one could have.

(And I just did the same thing here: "I've usually written them in the first place" -> "I've usually written the "it"s in the first place")
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] hilarityallen.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 11:43
Amateurnoun?
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontTue 2008-03-11 12:15
Nice :-) I think my version is better for actually using, because it describes the effect of the word rather than insulting the person who used it, but yours is certainly clever. (And yours would probably tempt me in some situations precisely because of its insulting nature...)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] ptc24.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 11:58
the file

You may be interested in the word anaphora - this refers to words that are back-references, whether they are pronouns or not. Thus if I have previously mentioned a file, "the file" would be anaphoric.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontTue 2008-03-11 12:08
Ooh, handy. And curiously enough it's the second time I've encountered the word today, although the first time I was only considering it as a possible rhyme :-) (But I discarded it when I found the stress was in the wrong place; also I only found its rhetorical meaning rather than the linguistic one.)
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] ptc24.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 13:21
It was only when I went to check Wikipedia today that I'd even heard of the rhetorical use.

Note that anaphora should not be confused with deixis. For example:

"Every student thinks he is the cleverest man in the room".

Here, he is anaphoric if you can a room full of smug students, and deictic if Stephen Hawking is in the room and the speaker/listener is looking at him.

Also, you can occasionally have cataphora, where the referent occurs after the referring expression.

(Hmmm, Wikipedia thinks anaphora are special cases of deixis...)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 12:01
It is a particular problem in physics too. When I am writing something one of my steps on the first edit if not the actual writing is to go through and change all incidences of the word "it" to an actual noun. If somebody gives me something to read with "it"s in, I am sometimes brave enough to do the same thing.
Link Reply to this
[personal profile] fanfTue 2008-03-11 12:09
I try to keep the pronouns consistent throughout a paragraph. This generally means I can talk about a user (2nd person), the author or programmer if that is me (1st person), and some distinction between 3rd person singular and plural. Though I rarely need as many as 4 referents. I avoid using genders to disambiguate.
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] pne.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 12:28
(I'm half tempted to coin the word ‘antinoun’ to describe a pronoun used to – not necessarily consciously – cover the fact that you're not sure what its referent is.)

Hm. For best results, combine with the passive voice!

"The file could not be found."
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] tigerfort.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 12:37
English language displays bizarre scope error problem. Film at eleven.
(Antinoun is a nice word, though :)
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] bugshaw.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 16:31
pro$noun? It does refer to a noun, you just don't know which one of them :-)
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] vyvyan.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 16:49
Perhaps a language like this might be more helpful (2nd paragraph):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anishinaabe_language#Grammar

Actually, I remember talking to a speaker of a closely related language, which he said had an arbitrary number of "third" person pronouns, incorporating numerals to refer to the order in which the relevant noun phrases had been mentioned in the current conversation. That could be particularly useful for your problem here :-)

E.g. "The program[1] couldn't find the file[2] and returned this error message[3]. It-two ought to have been in the directory[4] etc."
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontTue 2008-03-11 17:00
Gosh. I vaguely recall someone telling me once of a language with "third, fourth and fifth person" pronouns which were all basically third-person but distinguishable in much the way you describe; but actually going all the way to having an arbitrary number of them is even more cool!
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] vyvyan.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 17:03
In practice, I doubt speakers would manage to keep track of more than four or five back-references at one time anyway!
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.comTue 2008-03-11 21:03
Ooh, very cool. It's something I've often wanted and thought I'd heard some invented languages had, I didn't know any actual original languages had!
Link Reply to this | Parent
navigation
[ go | Previous Entry | Next Entry ]
[ add | to Memories ]